Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Peter Frouman Date: May 1, 2013 7:36am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Concerned that my blog has been added to your archive

jory2,
The Robot Exclusion Standard is indeed voluntary/advisory and no one is obliged to use it and there is no legal requirement for crawlers to honor it. However, the Internet Archive crawler software (Heritrix) does indeed honor it by default. If you doubt the official statements of IA on this, you can easily verify it by running the software yourself or examining its source code. Unless you're just trolling (which seems quite likely), I'm baffled as to why you seem to think that the official IA policy statements about the behaviour of their crawler are unreliable but the statements of random individual users editing a wiki for a completely separate project (that has apparently contributed volunteer time to IA projects) is somehow more reliable. Using the Robot Exclusion Standard is currently the most efficient and reliable method for publishers to communicate their preferences regarding the indexing and archiving of content they publish. Posting random complaints on a forum is much less likely to have the desired result.

DMCA notices can indeed be a useful tool to request removal of actual infringements. However, submitting DMCA notices with false statements to request the removal of non-infringing content is very risky as it can result in both civil liability and criminal penalties. I would suggest that anyone considering filing a DMCA notice get legal counsel from a licensed attorney with expertise in U.S. intellectual property law. Getting help from some random anonymous and completely unqualified person to draft a DMCA notice could turn out to be a very expensive mistake.

It should also be noted that recipients of DMCA notices have no legal obligation to respond to them or take any action (including removal) in response to them. They merely have the option to do so to possibly avoid potential liability but if there is no infringement, there is no liability (except possibly for legal expenses that can't be collected from the losing party).


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: May 1, 2013 10:40am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Concerned that my blog has been added to your archive

Peter Frouman'

"However, the Internet Archive crawler software (Heritrix) does indeed honor it by default. If you doubt the official statements of IA on this, you can easily verify it by running the software yourself or examining its source code."

Actually this link:

https://webarchive.jira.com/wiki/display/wayback/Home

is much more useful.

"Unless you're just trolling (which seems quite likely)"

Ah! I wondered how long it would take before you pulled that lame ass shit! You guys need new material!

So for the record, Trolling I don't know, Copyright / Intellectual Property I know well.

"I'm baffled as to why you seem to think that the official IA policy statements about the behaviour of their crawler are unreliable"

Check your facts, the IA tells you themselves that their software is not 100% reliable. Do you need direction to the exact page where you (and everyone else) can verify this info?
It's within the IA blog.

"but the statements of random individual users editing a wiki for a completely separate project (that has apparently contributed volunteer time to IA projects) is somehow more reliable."

And again you fail and fail miserably with that attempt too! Here's a direct quote from the IA blog:

"The prolific volunteers of Archive Team spent a lot of time this year archiving web sites on the verge of disappearing and then contributing those records to Internet Archive."

http://blog.archive.org/2013/01/09/updated-wayback/

"Using the Robot Exclusion Standard is currently the most efficient and reliable method for publishers to communicate their preferences regarding the indexing and archiving of content they publish. Posting random complaints on a forum is much less likely to have the desired result."

Like many, I would argue the law is the "most efficient and reliable method for publishers to communicate their preferences regarding the indexing and archiving of content they publish.".

"DMCA notices can indeed be a useful tool to request removal of actual infringements. However, submitting DMCA notices with false statements to request the removal of non-infringing content is very risky"

Fail and fails again; no where did I mention "submitting DMCA notices with false statements" because it can indeed result in civil liability.

"I would suggest that anyone considering filing a DMCA notice get legal counsel from a licensed attorney with expertise in U.S. intellectual property law. Getting help from some random anonymous and completely unqualified person to draft a DMCA notice could turn out to be a very expensive mistake."

I bet you would! Who care? Who are you? And do you really think people are not going to read for themselves?, and just take your word for it?

http://www.chillingeffects.org/, wonderful step-by-step instructions! Helpful with counter-notices as well!
Created by the EFF and Google if I'm not mistaken?

"It should also be noted that recipients of DMCA notices have no legal obligation to respond to them or take any action (including removal) in response to them. They merely have the option to do so to possibly avoid potential liability but if there is no infringement, there is no liability (except possibly for legal expenses that can't be collected from the losing party)."

Now I know without doubt that you have no idea what the f@$K you're taking about!, which is the only reason I added to this messy thread in the first place; you're 100% wrong on so many key points it's unbelievable!

People will, and can read for themselves, all the information is freely available for anyone interested.

Peter Frouman you are either clueless, or completely confused by the information you're reading; which is entirely possible, its one thing to read Bills/Acts/Laws ... but if you're not comprehending.

In any case, it's been interesting.